this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
113 points (95.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3125 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago (5 children)

That's good right?

Why would you want a bill specifically helping undocumented immigrants buy houses?

If I'm wrong I'd like to know why.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Certain people will be all in these comments saying it's discriminatory or unfair this almost happened and now didn't...it's not.

If you're undocumented and even here so long and this is your life...etc. That's one thing.

Expecting to be rewarded for that when others are not is not going to fly with the right or left. It's an insane proposition to begin with that focuses on a certain subject of the population, and then step further because they are not officially the population. Kind of a snub to others.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The bill, by Democratic Assembly member Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, would have prohibited the disqualification of loan applicants to a state first-time homebuyer program for reasons based solely on immigration status.

Not rewarding anybody. Read the article

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The above response is kinda the wrong angle, but I can't see why a bank is not allowed to deny a loan to someone who is not a citizen. If you by definition do not have legal right to live here, I don't get why a bank is required to loan you money to buy a home. When you can be gone and out of the country a week later. I get maybe some are willing to loan to them, but not allowing them to deny it is kinda insane. I can't believe they legally are even allowed to buy a home.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

NOT being disqualified is a reward for people who are not citizens.

I'm all for fixing the situations for undocumented immigrants that have made a life here under certain circumstances, but just removing hurdles to not have them correct the situation themselves seems like a step in the wrong direction. In this specific case, the bandwidth for the program to help people who ARE citizens is reduced by including those who are not, which doesn't seem fair.

You can slice that up however you want to, but at the end of the day, including non-citizens into social programs designed to help a larger pool of people reduces the availability to citizens.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I dunno man, I generally don’t support policies that exist just make life difficult for people who are already at a disadvantage.

There are so many roadblocks preventing these people from fixing their situation, and the State of California has no power to help them rectify it.

The cost of this program would be pretty negligible compared to other frivolous government spending, which I’m sure you’re equally vocally opposed to.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The circumstances of this people isn't the problem though. It's the fact that they are eligible at all that is the toxic component.

You'll never be able to get enough public support behind anything like this when you know that there's a large segment of voters crossing party lines who this pisses off. The root cause of citizenship is still the problem.

If you think that his is designed to make it harder for people, you're mistaken. It should be working for citizens first. We can't be making social policies that don't already fix problems of the citizens, and then go a step further to include larger population segments. Our government shouldn't be fixing everyone else's problems when we can't even help our own people.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Immigrants are “our own people”.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Says who? The government certainly says they aren't. Just because you may be related to them in some way doesn't mean municipal programs and funds should exist for them. They aren't even registered as refugee, alien, or asylum seekers if they are undocumented. Why should they be allowed to then receive help or funds from government run social programs in lieu of full citizens?

On either side of the political spectrum you have people that don't want this. I'd like a better path for these people as well, but not in this way either. Regardless of taxpayer status, there are still laws, and the people this would benefit have intentionally disregarded those laws, and that shouldn't be rewarded. Especially not in California when practically nobody except the highest earning families can afford permanent housing.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

Another article also said that aid would be given based on a lottery-type drawing. Seems a bit silly and also lotteries typically work by giving less than you get. How about encouraging naturalization and awarding aid to someone recently naturalized? I'm not in the camp of saying to hell with helping undocumented immigrants but if you're going to call them out specifically I think the focus should be on naturalization or helping them become documented.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There’s tons of people in California that grew up there and work normal jobs who are undocumented basically on a technicality. That’s who this bill was looking to help. Newly landed immigrants are not going to be in a position to buy a house, certainly not in California.

Unfortunately, that does give a lot of ammunition for the right, who have a very warped view of what immigrants look like.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

If that is the case, then it reads like California is solving the wrong problem.

If a person is undocumented due to their parents decision, then the federal government should make it much easier for them to become an American citizen.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Same. That kinda seems like it would lead to fewer people bothering to want to be a documented immigrant, right? Which, phrased a little differently, kinda incentivizes people to come in illegally or at least remain undocumented once here since that wouldn't be a barrier to them owning a home? The right would've had a fucking field day if he'd signed that. They froth over straws in milkshakes; he doesn't need to draw valid criticisms via bad policy two months before this election.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

Right. If you're undocumented, the first step should be to get documented, and authorities should focus on providing more and easier paths to proper documentation. Then you can take advantage of the programs in place for potential homebuyers if you want to.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago

I agree. I want only citizens to own property. I am not at all against people immigrating.